Apparently, many people thought that my intro in my last newsletter about not chasing algos, was actually about them. Go figure.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I was receiving some nasty emails from some people, and there's also a few articles that have been published on the subject.

Certainly, I've never shied away from an online disagreement, but it's interesting to read the nasty emails and articles because they're not really even disagreements. They're just written to be nasty.

At any rate, I decided to create a new blog SEO Bitch! where I can post the nastygrams and articles. Many are quite amusing.

The good news is that the letters of support far, far, far outweighed the nastygrams. I even had far fewer unsubscribes after that issue than usual.

Remember, the SEO Bitch! site is a blog, so you should start at the bottom and work your way up.

I was just doing a bit of surfing and came across this thread in which I, and others, were accused of writing things for the sake of just being nasty. I can't speak for the others, but I can speak for myself, so I thought I'd set the record straight. But before you get your proverbials in a twist, Jill, I'm not stopping. Christmas is upon us and I'll be out of action for a while. So I'll simply say what I have to say and leave it. I expect you'll find a reason to edit it anyway.

Most of what I wrote in my article was merited on an academic level. Jill reprinted the whole article illegally (without permission) and commented that it contained lies about her. But she didn't state what the lies were. In fact, there are no lies about her in the article. It contains things about her that are not very nice, but they are true.

It's not the first time that she's accused me of lying about her. She did it in this forum not long ago but, after denying everything for a while, she finally owned up and proved my case, and I was seen to have been telling the truth all along. I've never lied about her, or anybody else, and I've never invented things about her or anyone else. I know some unpleasant things about her because I've seen them, and I sometimes state them because I dislike what she does and says enormously, but they are not lies.

*I* don't go around stealing other people's work, and *I* don't go around lying all over the place.

Incidentally, Jill removed my article from her seo bitch site as soon as she received my email pointing out the illegality of putting it there without permission. I don't believe for one second that she didn't know that it was illegal to put it on her site, so what does that make her?

Jill, if you were honest with people, you wouldn't get the sort of flack that you get. It's only because you persist in telling people things that you know are untrue that the flack comes your way.

About setting the record straight:- did I write the article just to be nasty? Not really, but I do admit that I put more into it because it was about Jill's newsletter than I would otherwise have done. It wasn't just an academic commentary; it contained some personal feeling, which might just amount to a degree of nastiness on my part. But it wasn't nearly as nasty as some of the comments Jill wrote in her bitch site about people she received emails from, so I'm content with it. Also, it doesn't contain lies, whereas Jill's comments on the article (before she removed it all) did contain lies about me. Unfortunately, I can't quote them because she removed it all, but you can read about them in my response by searching Google for 'seo bitch' and looking for the webworkshop.net listing on the first page. I removed the links to the response from my site when Jill removed the illegal reprinting of the article from hers, but Google had already got it.

In the second post of this thread, Jill, Vijay asked you a question. At least one of the people here recognised that there may be some merit in the article, but you didn't answer his question yet.

Vijay, my article may have contained an element of nastiness, but it wasn't "useless", as you put it. It corrected the misinformation that Jill put out in that newsletter. The newsletter goes out to thousands of people, almost all of whom will not read this thread and will not become aware of the later discussion about "best" sites. To those people, what Jill wrote was that, if they make their sites to be in the best 10 for their topic, Google will list them in the top 10. She didn't say that exactly, but anyone reading it would have certainly infered that from what she wrote. In fact, she admitted in this thread that she said a little wrongly (I think). We all know that it isn't true, of course, and those things needed correcting. There were other things in the newsletter that needed correcting too - hence the article.

And finally...

Jill, contrary to your stated belief, I didn't optimize the article to rank highly for "Jill Whalen". It's only at #20, for goodness sakes. I know that what the page contains is your idea of optimization, but it isn't mine, and it isn't optimization. It's only friendlyization - your stock in trade.

Today I was pointed to the "SEO Bitch" website, and was surprised to find that the "Bitch" is Jill Whalen. The name she has chosen is something of a misnomer because, whilst she may indeed be correct in describing herself as a bitch, she is not an SEO

Phil -

You shouldn't be linking to Jill's blog. ( http://www.webworkshop.net/blog.html )

She thinks it's all about copywriting, so let her try and get to the top via copy.

The somebody who put the www.seo-bitch.com site up, or the somebody that the site is about?

Come on Guys lighten up a bit.

Jill is a very talented gal, perhaps SEO may not be her forte, but I know of no one who has done a better job of promoting themselves.

My son's best friend Dimitri's family owns the local Pizza place here in Ashland, MA. I finally got around to creating a little Website for them so that people can view their menu.

Check out Nicks Pizza and Seafood in Ashland, MA.

Not the greatest Website in the world, but it should suffice!

Jill

Yikes! I came across a potential client a week or so back (client now) who's site had been 'professionally SEOed'. I only looked at the home page, but there was no seo in it - not even in the Title tag, let alone in the text.